Comey investigated Hillary before

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by 1458279, Mar 31, 2016.

  1. 1458279 Suspended

    1458279

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Location:
    California
    #1
    In 1996, after months of work, Comey came to some damning conclusions: Hillary Clinton was personally involved in mishandling documents and had ordered others to block investigators as they pursued their case. Worse, her behavior fit into a pattern of concealment: she and her husband had tried to hide their roles in two other matters under investigation by law enforcement.

    the interference by White House officials, which included destruction of documents, amounted to “far more than just aggressive lawyering or political naiveté,” Comey and his fellow investigators concluded. It constituted “a highly improper pattern of deliberate misconduct.”


    One of his first cases as a line attorney in the same office 15 years earlier had been the successful prosecution of Marc Rich, a wealthy international financier, for tax evasion. But on his last day as President in 2001, Bill Clinton pardoned Rich. “I was stunned,” Comey later told Congress.

    Lawyers preparing Clinton and her aides for possible interviews are well aware that Comey has a history of prosecuting those who impede investigators. Cheney’s aide Libby was convicted not of leaking Plame’s identity but of obstructing justice, as was Martha Stewart.


    http://time.com/4276988/jim-comey-hillary-clinton/
     
  2. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
  3. Robisan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2014
    #3
    What's interesting is the Washington Post published a 5,000 word piece on the email investigation this past weekend - 5,000 words! - and there were absolutely no new revelations or information. If it wasn't for the correction they had to run - they claims there were 147 FBI investigators working on this when the actual number is fewer than 50 - I wouldn't have been aware the piece ran. And the Time piece in the OP has no new information.

    Note that there was no thread here about the WP piece and I'll bet nobody here was aware of it. And PRSI people actually follow the news.

    Conclusion: There's no there, there. Whole lot of nothing.
     
  4. 1458279 thread starter Suspended

    1458279

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Location:
    California
    #4
    I don't understand how you get to that conclusion. The FBI is very tight lipped on this and have quite a few people working on it. The same person (Comey) was the same one that found huge problems with the Clintons in White Water and went after people on obstruction. He does't seem to play around. I doubt this much time and that many people would add up to nothing.

    The basis for your conclusion seems to be that the media didn't have any new news on this. Where exactly would they have gotten any new news from? You're saying that because the FBI is tight lipped, there is no there there? Was that the same "logic" used to determine if Marc Rich was guilty or not? Did the FBI talk about other cases and we can use the amount of FBI talk as a gauge of guilt?
     
  5. Robisan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2014
    #5
    An earlier version of this article incorrectly said that Clinton used two different email addresses, sometimes interchangeably, as secretary of state. She used only hdr22@clintonemail.com as secretary of state. Also, an earlier version of this article reported that 147 FBI agents had been detailed to the investigation, according to a lawmaker briefed by FBI Director James B. Comey. Two U.S. law enforcement officials have since told The Washington Post that figure is too high. The FBI will not provide an exact figure, but the officials say the number of FBI personnel involved is fewer than 50.​

    That's the WP correction. Note Comey himself is allegedly talking with lawmakers (who leak like sieves) and two law enforcement officials spoke the WP. Somebody leaked the information that the guy who installed the server was granted limited immunity. Furthermore, the WP doesn't write 5,000 pieces without having sources of information. If you think the FBI is air tight and never leaks dirt you're living on another planet. Dirt on Clinton would be the juiciest of juicy info and you can be sure it would get out somehow.

    ...adding, the real story here is who was the lawmaker who lied to the WP about the number of FBI agents and why did they lie. That would be some actual, real news. But reporters will never burn their sources even when they lie - which gives them license to lie all the time.
     
  6. 1458279 thread starter Suspended

    1458279

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Location:
    California
    #6
    I don't see how the number of agents working on a case being talked about gets to Hillary isn't guilty because that would have been leaked already. The number of agents is probably something that the FBI is allowed to talk about, guilt or evidence is another thing entirely.

    Other things are known too, like granting immunity to staffer who setup the server.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...21e39e-e0a0-11e5-9c36-e1902f6b6571_story.html

    My understanding is that they don't do this unless they have a reason. There's also a reason they've had so many agents working on it for so long.

    Concluding that the FBI would have leaked already if Hillary was guilty just doesn't fly.

    Moreover, the attention this has would mean if they don't come up with something, it really egg on their face. Comey has found Clinton guilty before and knows she destroyed documents, so there is a history between them.
     
  7. hiddenmarkov macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2014
    Location:
    Japan
    #7

    Technically...data leakage tends to be a cut and dry affair. If a clear smoking gun...it be found quite readily and doesn't need informal, then formal inquiries that stretch on for months. Going off my time in the Marines and working a classified control section with SIPR net access (I ran the system, CO needed mail I fired it up, also used to carry out duties of my billet as well)....if I somehow was the cause for data leakage from secure SIPR to non secure NIPR I'd be fried extra crispy for sure at NJP if not Court Martial and wearing a nice orange jump suit at the brig potentially in a rather short time span. Its that cut and dry really....secret and higher mails go on secret SIPR systems. And you can't go I didn't know I was on SIPR, my bad.

    To be honest if they want her this bad they should look at PII or hell HIPAA stuff. this stuff cut and dry too. Nice firm, strict guidelines that leave very little if nothing at all to the imagination. Did she touch records with health information for some reason? Were they transmitted/handled in an improper manner potentially violating health privacy acts? yes. Case closed at that point. If she was loose with the data in question, probably loose with this too if it came across the wire.

    This would be their best bet. the whole class/unclass game....its taking so long since its murky. If some one gets it classed later...the round is down range already. You cannot unsee what has been seen.

    Guidance of one should know better is not absolute or definable. Welcome to the paranoia of todays world. the trash we throw out could be intel treasure to another just from common work areas not even in secured zones.
     
  8. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #8
    Hillary will never see the inside of a jail cell, but Huma Weiner might.
     
  9. 1458279 thread starter Suspended

    1458279

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Location:
    California
    #9
    In addition to that, I think there's the issue of intent. Why did she setup the server in the 1st place? The government already had an information system that she could have used.

    The other issue is that if all over her emails came thru her server, it's pretty clear that something would have been classified. It's hard to imagine that 100% of every email would be properly seen as un-classified and suitable for storage on her personal server.
     
  10. Robisan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2014
    #10
    Read it again. You missed the point entirely.
     
  11. 1458279 thread starter Suspended

    1458279

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Location:
    California
    #11
    Do you think they'll make fun of her last name in jail?
     
  12. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #12
    No. The Muslim Brotherhood has cells in every American penitentiary. She'll be protected.
     
  13. 1458279 thread starter Suspended

    1458279

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Location:
    California
    #13
    Ok, so it's about the FBI talking to lawmakers and the lawmakers are the source of the leaks and lies, not that actual number of agents on the case.

    I'm still not convinced that the FBI would be giving out meaningful details about the case. The AG was very tight lipped as well when interviewed about it.

    Just as much as negative news about this would top the charts, so would positive news, and we really haven't had anything solid either way.
     
  14. Robisan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2014
    #14
    If there were smoking guns here do you honestly think they wouldn't be leaked? Do you really think every FBI agent involved with the investigation is apolitical? Don't be naive.

    ...adding, leaks are currency in DC and juicy leaks about Clinton are High Currency. No way every last person holding that currency (if it exists) chooses not to cash it.
     
  15. Jess13 Suspended

    Jess13

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2013
    #15
    Seems Comey might have a grudge to settle with Mrs. Clinton.
     
  16. Robisan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2014
    #16
    Of course when he comes back saying there are no charges you'll say he's in the tank
     
  17. Jess13 Suspended

    Jess13

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2013
    #17
    The probability of that happening is next to none. Now, it is likely that Lynch refuses to indict.
     
  18. 1458279 thread starter Suspended

    1458279

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Location:
    California
    #18
    He did go after people under Bush, so it really does seem like he's a straight shooter. It's really important that we have at least on part of the government that plays by the rules. With the IRS, EPA, and many other branches pushing a personal agenda, it become important that we have some straight shooters left if we're going to return to being a nation of laws.

    Edit* Given how high profile this case is, I can't see Comey going forward without a very well prepared case. This can be a very important historical point in US history, all sides are going to go over this with a fine tooth comb.
     
  19. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #19
    What's that "personal agenda"?
     
  20. 1458279 thread starter Suspended

    1458279

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Location:
    California
    #20
    I think you quoted the wrong one, others were saying personal agenda. I don't think Comey has a personal agenda.
     
  21. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #21
    I'm talking about branches of government having a personal agenda. I don't understand that to be honest.

    I agree they are probably pro-establishment.
     

Share This Page